Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AtikaAtikawa/Userboxes/Antizionist: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:18, 29 May 2024

User:AtikaAtikawa/Userboxes/Antizionist

This is a very concerning userbox considering the recent events because Wikipedia has Israeli users. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

I don't see how it is concerning, considering the userbox User:Mr A/Palestine is around and contains a similar wording. Furthermore, would you say the same about User:Brobbz/Zionist considering Wikipedia having Palestinian users? or Template:User_Support_Israel, User:Oren neu dag/my userboxes/User One-State Solution and User:Valley2city/Userboxes/User anti-disengagement that apparently call for expantionism? or even User:WaddlesJP13/Userbox/Otzma Yehudit and User:WaddlesJP13/Userbox/Religious Zionist Party which clearly manifest a support for far-right parties? I think that proceeding to delete this userbox - which again, I stand by it having nothing that goes against WP:UP - and leaving the ones I mentioned screams bias. [edited] — Yours Truly, ⚑ AtikaAtikawa 03:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is significantly more problematic than User:Mr A/Palestine, which clarifies what is meant. Which use of From the river to the sea is intended in this userbox? Delete, inflammatory. —Kusma (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This userbox advocates for abolishment, elimination, destruction of the State of Israel and therefore extending the territory of the State of Palestine over all of its territory. As both Israel and Palestine are ethnocratic nation states in character, bringing all of the (then-former) Israelis under the rule of a state with a predominant Palestinian Arab character can not happen peacefully, and the Jews are a majority demographically on this territory so imposing a state that does not symbolically represent this majority, and only bears the ethnic character of the minority is an extremist fantasy, that is most commonly resolved by imagining mass expulsion, which is then justified by evil deeds of Israel.—Alalch E. 09:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've yet to see proofs that Palestine is ethnocratic in character. Rather it's just a secularised name of the land unlike "Israel", at least the name isn't considering that you can't say the same about Mandatory Palestine and that it was literally used by the early zionist organisations for example. Furthermore, stating the demographics of that land is weird, please keep in mind that there are a lot of Palestinians who are expulsed from it and still bear the right to return. — Yours Truly, ⚑ AtikaAtikawa 13:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This makes a lot of assumptions about what is meant by the template. It could be anything from a Palestinian ethnostate (bad) to a democratic, binational one-state solution bearing the historical name of "Palestine" (good). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Alalch E. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 19:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "user is not ECR", so we can skip the whole discussion about what is meant by "from the river to the sea" and avoid another inflammatory I/P debate. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is meant can be found, or should be added to, From the river to the sea. -- SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to the vague and inflammatory nature of the infobox, as well as PIA being a historically contentious issue that has resulted in infamous LTA cases, ANI and ARBCOM proceedings that has only ramped up following the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war, this infobox can only be counterproductive to civility, collaboration and discussion. Air on White (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that all userboxes that advocate for war or violence, especially in regards to the establishment of new countries and abolition of current ones or changes in national borders, should face scrutiny. You could argue that "From the river to the sea!" doesn't inherently encourage violence, but its use in practice has accompanied calls for violence often enough that the infobox is worthy of deletion. Air on White (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being too vague. As Kusma pointed out above, we already have a userbox for those who support a one state solution. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Vague userbox and possibly inflammatory, as the nature of the phrase is often used to stir conflicts. Haruka Amaranth 13:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Advocating a one state solution seems to be fair game in the usual discretion we allow in user boxes, and way below the thresholds for what we have consistently got a pass over the years. MarioGom (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, all this really does is provide a reworded variation of a sentiment that is already expressed in a few other Userboxes. I don't see how this userbox is any different from Userboxes I stated prior and others, such as Oren neu dag's userbox on the matter or this one, which also advocate for a One-state solution. It's also worth mentioning something which User: AtikaAtikawa brought up in their argument, deleting this could be seen as bias. Why should we get rid of one Pro-Palestinian userbox, yet leave others which are essentially the same, but are rather pro-Israel. If the consensus is to delete this userbox, the others I mentioned here may also be worth taking a second-glance at.

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 *'''Delete''': Vague userbox and possibly inflammatory, as the nature of the phrase is often used to stir conflicts. <span style="font-family:Georgia">[[User:HarukaAmaranth|<span style="background:#FF1493; color:#FFE2E2; padding:2px;">Haruka</span>]][[User talk:HarukaAmaranth|<span style="background:#FFE2E2; color:#FF1493; padding:2px;">Amaranth</span>]] </span> 13:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''': Advocating a one state solution seems to be fair game in the usual discretion we allow in user boxes, and way below the thresholds for what we have consistently got a pass over the years. [[User:MarioGom|MarioGom]] ([[User talk:MarioGom|talk]]) 19:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''', all this really does is provide a reworded variation of a sentiment that is already expressed in a [[User:Mr A/Palestine|few]] [[User:UBX/SupportPalestine|other]] Userboxes. I don't see how this userbox is any different from Userboxes I stated prior and others, such as [[User:Oren neu dag/my userboxes/User One-State Solution|Oren neu dag's userbox on the matter]] or [[Template:User Support Israel|this one]],  which also advocate for a [[One-state solution]]. It's also worth mentioning something which [[User: AtikaAtikawa]] brought up in their argument, deleting this could be seen as bias. Why should we get rid of one Pro-Palestinian userbox, yet leave others which are essentially the same, but are rather pro-Israel. If the consensus is to delete this userbox, the others I mentioned here may also be worth taking a second-glance at.